All Vaccines are contaminated !

Status
Not open for further replies.
An international team of researchers, led by Arizona State University chemist C. Austen Angell and University of Amsterdam’s Dr. Sander Woutersen, has observed one of the more intriguing properties predicted by water theoreticians — that, on sufficient supercooling and under specific conditions it will suddenly change from one liquid to a different one. The new liquid is still water but now it is of lower density and with a different arrangement of the hydrogen bonded molecules with stronger bonding that makes it a more viscous liquid. The results appear today in the journal Science.


For a substance that is ubiquitous on Earth, three quarters of our planet is covered with it, scientists can still be surprised by some of water’s properties. Image credit: Brisch27.

The new phenomenon is a liquid-liquid phase transition, and until now it had only been seen in computer simulations of water models.

The problem with observing this phenomenon directly in real water is that, shortly before the theory says it should happen, the real water suddenly crystallizes to ice. This has been called the ‘crystallization curtain’ and it held up progress in understanding water physics and water in biology for decades.

“The domain between this crystallization temperature and the much lower temperature at which glassy water — formed by deposition of water molecules from the vapor — crystallizes during heating has been known as a ‘no-man’s land’,” Dr. Angell said.

“We found a way to pull aside the ‘crystallization curtain’ just enough to see what happens behind — or more correctly, below — it.”

Phase transitions of water are important to understand for a multitude of applications.

For example, the well-known and destructive heaving of concrete roads and footpaths in winter is due to the phase transition from water to ice under the concrete.

The phase transition between liquid states, described in the current work, has much in common with the transition to ice but it occurs at a much lower temperature, about minus 130 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 90 degrees Celsius), and only under supercooled conditions so it is likely to remain mostly a scientific curiosity for the foreseeable future.

“A couple of years ago we were studying the thermal behavior of a special type of ‘ideal’ aqueous solution we had been using to explore the folding and unfolding of globular proteins,” Dr. Angell said.

“We wanted to observe these solutions’ ability to supercool and then vitrify.”

“Seeking the limit to the glassy domain, we added extra water to enhance the probability of ice crystallization and found that instead of finally evolving heat as ice crystallized (leaving a residual unfrozen solution) as is normally found when cooling saline solutions, it actually gave off heat to form a new liquid phase.”

The liquid was much more viscous, maybe even glassy. Furthermore, by reversing the direction of the temperature change, the authors found that they could transform the new phase back into the original solution before any ice would start to crystallize.

“This observation raised considerable interest but there was no structural information to explain what was happening,” Dr. Angell noted.

In the Science paper, the team has shown that the structures involved in the liquid-liquid transition have the same spectroscopic signatures — and the same hydrogen bonding patterns — as are seen in the two known glassy forms of ice produced by laborious alternative processes (high- and low-density amorphous solid phases of water).

“The liquid-liquid transition we had found was now seen to be the ‘living analog’ of the change between two glassy states of pure water that had been reported in 1994, using pure pressure as the driving force,” Dr. Angell said.

“Our results would seem to provide direct evidence for the existence of a liquid-liquid transition behind the ‘crystallization curtain’ in pure water,” Dr. Woutersen added.

“The findings offer a general explanation for the thermodynamic anomalies of liquid water, and a validation for the ‘second critical point theory’ put forward by researchers to explain those anomalies.”

“This behavior is almost unique among the myriad of known molecular liquids. Only a few other substances are thought to exhibit it, but none have been proven to date,” Dr. Angell concluded.


i have been theorising this for some years.
like gas & like liquid, water in a state of frozen temperature range acting as independant solids bonded with each other while moving viscousely like a liquid.
 
So... slush? Like a slush puppy?
yup precisely.
i was pondering the methane lakes of neptune and it occured to me that our knowledge of liquids is quite limited.
as i pondered the harmonic variance effects on water and all its earthly associates(comets etc) i thought, given we do not really comprehend gravitys effect on an atomic level we also do not comprehend liquid dynamics under other worldly forces.
as we see with a collection of (just using an easily mentally constructed image) tiny do-decahedron magnets collected together.
in one form they have strong bonding, in another position they have weak bonding.
yet the bonding its self is not reliant on outside force to determine its absolute properties.
only a physical orientation.
on an attomic level this might wel be possible.
thus a form of dust or water which in its state is a collection of strong or weak bonded individual components.
our perspective of statistical scientific expereince has only recently been opened up with hubble and the back ground radiation fields etc

i hope our understanding will grow exponentially :)
 
... we do not really comprehend gravitys effect on an atomic level
Of course we do. Gravity pulls heavier atoms down, just like it always does.

It doesn't really have a profound effect on molecules in the chemical sense.

we also do not comprehend liquid dynamics under other worldly forces.
Well, liquid dynamics are pretty much the same on other worlds as they are here in our labs.
 
We have a far greater understanding of physical chemistry than you described above.

Here's to hoping your understanding of physical chemistry will grow exponentially.
lol
such a throw away comment
scientifically meaningless and only shows your sense of need to assert a feeling of dominance and superiority.

of all the things you could have posted. this is your ideal ...
 
lol
such a throw away comment
scientifically meaningless and only shows your sense of need to assert a feeling of dominance and superiority.

of all the things you could have posted. this is your ideal ...

Do you assert that humanity (the "we" in billvon's post) does not, in fact, have a far greater understanding of physical chemistry, as he claimed?
 
lol
such a throw away comment
scientifically meaningless and only shows your sense of need to assert a feeling of dominance and superiority.
No, RS. You're posting about how ignorant we are - that's the meaningless part, since - based on your examples - we know a lot more than you think.
 
scientifically meaningless and only shows your sense of need to assert a feeling of dominance and superiority.
I feel no such need; humanity's understanding of physical chemistry is simply superior to yours.

You can do one of two things here:
1) Continue to bitch about how little you know about physical chemistry
2) Learn some physical chemistry.
 
Here is what happens in threads like these:

Guy makes a post, like an adult, discussing the dangers of chemicals in vaccines.

Gets responded with a bunch of juvenile posts making fun of water and the titanic, arguing like faerie daemons instead of adults. I couldn't get past page 2, maybe there is actually a serious discussion on page 3 but I lost interest in this thread at this point.
 
I couldn't get past page 2, maybe there is actually a serious discussion on page 3 but I lost interest in this thread at this point.
And yet you managed to reply. Imagine how thrilled we would be if you participated in a thread that interested you.
 
Here is what happens in threads like these:

Guy makes a post, like an adult, discussing the dangers of chemicals in vaccines.

Gets responded with a bunch of juvenile posts making fun of water and the titanic, arguing like faerie daemons instead of adults. I couldn't get past page 2, maybe there is actually a serious discussion on page 3 but I lost interest in this thread at this point.

Eh, not quite. What happened is that someone made a ridiculous claim, based on a long-debunked "study" that was found not only to be poorly managed, but intentionally fraudulent, and butchers the premise of the thread so poorly that it takes several back and forth conversations just to get the actual point across.

Then, when shown evidence that their premise is wrong, they double down to the point of absurdity (the whole point of the dihydrogen monoxide tangent), which proves the counterpoint that people need to be educated and informed, but need to do their homework and actually take time to inform themselves, instead of simply believing everything they are spoon fed by their pundits of choice (often selected due to confirmation bias).

Was the water tangent a little silly? Certainly - and that was the point. People will happily and readily call for the absolute abolishing of damn near anything if they don't know the name by which it is being addressed. It's like how, a few years ago, a petition was circulated calling for the end of Women's Suffrage - people flocked to sign it, saying it's terrible how much women are suffering and how "women's suffrage needs to end"... and none of them had a fucking clue that what they were signing was calling for the end of a woman's right to VOTE. They saw a crowd going in a direction, and like good little sheep, they followed it without knowing what or why.

The response to River's post was not a "bunch of juvenile posts making fun of water and the titanic", nor was it "arguing like faerie daemons" - they were, in fact, quite rational responses with the purpose of guiding someone to the logical conclusion of available evidence, rather than simply telling them they are wrong.

If, however, you would prefer we simply said "No, you are wrong" and left it at that... well, I think you may be in the wrong place for that.
 
I did inadvertently come across this:
The notion of using chelation as a treatment for autism originated years ago, when some people believed there was a link between autism and mercury contained in childhood vaccines.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/autism-chelation-therapy-unproven-and-dangerous-1.4803423

So, I guess it qualifies as a conspiracy. (Don't know if it has already been mentioned. :oops:)

The thiomersal controversy describes claims that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thiomersal contribute to the development of autism and other brain development disorders.[1] Thimerosal is no longer used in children's vaccines in the United States, except some types of flu shots.[2] While exposure to mercury may result in damage to brain, kidneys, and developing fetus,[3] the current scientific consensus has found no convincing scientific evidence supporting claims that thiomersal has such effects.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

Just to stay on topic with the original thread title itself. -_O
 
The response to River's post was not a "bunch of juvenile posts making fun of water and the titanic", nor was it "arguing like faerie daemons" - they were, in fact, quite rational responses with the purpose of guiding someone to the logical conclusion of available evidence, rather than simply telling them they are wrong.

If, however, you would prefer we simply said "No, you are wrong" and left it at that... well, I think you may be in the wrong place for that.

My vaccine argument is this. I went to the website, http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vaccine-ingredients#active ingredients, showing the ingredients.

But how can we believe they are telling the truth? We have no reason to trust the governement. What have they ever done to earn our trust? All they ever did is kill Native Americans. And then make Agent Orange and do secret government testing on Human Beings! Who knows what other stuff they are up to that is no good. For all we know, they are putting weird things in vaccines they are not telling us about.

For example, we can't even trust the labels of our food. The ingredients often say "Natural flavor". But "Natural flavor" means often, articifical and toxic flavor! If we cannot trust the labels of our food what can we trust?


I think the Titanic, is actually a good metaphor! Look what happened to those who blindly trusted the authority, who blindly followed the captain of the ship!
 
My vaccine argument is this. I went to the website, http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vaccine-ingredients#active ingredients, showing the ingredients.
And what is wrong with that?

A moment's thought should make it obvious that preparing vaccines that are stable enough for use is quite complicated and will require a number of ingredients to be present to make them safe and effective.

What, in the link you quote, indicates a hidden risk in vaccines, in your opinion?

N.B. This link is from Oxford University, so will be independent of government and the pharmaceutical industry.
 
And what is wrong with that?

A moment's thought should make it obvious that preparing vaccines that are stable enough for use is quite complicated and will require a number of ingredients to be present to make them safe and effective.

What, in the link you quote, indicates a hidden risk in vaccines, in your opinion?

N.B. This link is from Oxford University, so will be independent of government and the pharmaceutical industry.
Still, it would be a better to have a lab of my own, rather than relying on the faith in others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top