HOW could CORONA be BYPASSED BY CONDUCTING SPIRITUAL SCIENCE COURSE in UNIVERSITIES

Universities teach science and they teach about religious and spiritual beliefs. The latter is taught in the humanities unless there are aspects that can be examined using the constraints and boundaries of the scientific method, then science may weigh in. In one such science, ecology, they teach that the entire biological system of nature is based upon the consumption of one life form by another, they refer to it as the food web.

I do think that if human beings did a better job of contemplating and appreciating those humanities, including the spirituality side of our existence in this dimension, a great deal of suffering of mankind would be reduced. Science could be thought of as a subset of a larger set of beliefs. That larger set of beliefs includes both those spiritual and scientific beliefs. Scientific beliefs can also be spiritual, but many spiritual beliefs do not also qualify as science. What defines science is the rules and requirements put upon any theories and beliefs that are placed within that set. Those beliefs outside of that science set may or may not be true in the current common manifestation of reality, but I think it is a mistake made by many to want to somehow force them in.

I think this desire to get one's beliefs placed under the banner of science results from the widespread respect and admiration that science has achieved over the last few centuries. We tend to disagree with, or are at least skeptical about each other's spiritual beliefs, but most of humanity these days tends to give higher credence to ‘scientifically proven’ theories. So now everybody wants to be labeled creation science, or spiritual science, or instead of claiming “God says” without any real proof, now they say “science says”, while I expect neither to say any such thing. This, along with the slow erosion of trust in science being pushed by many politicians, at the behest of those whose profits are threatened by what it has to say, has tended to wear away at that trust.

The professors actually do know how to deal with the Corona virus, however their knowledge is limited to scientific theories and the current state of scientific knowledge. I expect that those theories are advanced enough to eventually produce vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and other therapies that will have a reasonable degree of efficacy, but that will take time. In the meantime I expect that religious and spiritual types will continue to seize on the opportunity to claim science doesn’t know what it is doing and instead push links to their own unproven and currently unprovable beliefs. Whether they be God's judgment upon us for not following a particular religion, or natures judgment upon us for eating meat. Perhaps science should spend more time examining the sociological and psychological aspects of that human cultural phenomenon, as it has cost many lives in the past, and is and will continue to cost lives in this case.

As far as I am aware, being a vegan is no more effective against the Covid-19 virus than is drinking bleach, sticking fluorescent lights down your throat, or injecting lysol. That is what science says. About the only way to get it to say otherwise, is to try to force open the definition of science so that one can get one's own spiritual, religious, or political beliefs covered under that umbrella, and that is a dangerous thing to do. Yes, science will tell us that wet markets offer an opportunity for viruses to jump from other animals to humans, but they keep reopening and stay open because of political and financial influences, despite what science says. However, the meat at the supermarket, regardless of any other environmental impacts that system may have, is not what is causing viruses, that may be a valid spiritual belief, but it is junk science.

By all means, one should be free to turn to and practice one's spiritual beliefs during this pandemic or at any other time. And I expect this could be helpful in any number of ways. But casting doubt on real science and pushing one's spiritual beliefs on others as true science, is just more likely to end up getting more people killed before it’s all over.

.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well that is an interesting closing line.??
How would google and Facebook prevent universities from setting their curriculum requirements?

They censure information, and distribute misinformation.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

When sars cov-1 'died out', so did any interest in a vaccine till now. A vaccine for sars cov-2 is on the news all of the time.

If antibodies don't insure immunity, then there can be no vaccine. If a vaccine's side effect is reducing immunity to other viruses, you might not want to use it.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There's evidence that's now more readily available indicating eating certain types of animal proteins can certainly have a positive impact on the outcome of infection. It might not prevent infection but it certainly looks to play a role in reducing the more severe outcomes.

It's Vitamin D and aside from Sun exposure animal protein is the best source.

https://www.prevention.com/food-nutr...-in-vitamin-d/

Another factor is insulin and leptin resistance. This degrades the innate immune system and increases inflammatory response, both very bad if one does contract COVID-19. Low carb and high fat diets, keto being an extreme example, can be very beneficial in re-balancing and then maintaining healthy insulin and leptin responses.

Yes, one can supplement Vitamin D but getting it naturally through nutrition via a low carb-high fat diet has the added benefit of combating metabolic syndrome, and that's at the bottom of a host of chronic disease and most of the comorbidities associated with COVIC-19.

I agree .

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

... widespread respect and admiration that science has achieved over the last few centuries.

... The professors actually do know how to deal with the Corona virus,

... As far as I am aware, being a vegan is no more effective against the Covid-19 virus than is drinking bleach, sticking fluorescent lights down your throat, or injecting lysol. That is what science says.

... But casting doubt on real science and pushing one's spiritual beliefs on others as true science, is just more likely to end up getting more people killed before it’s all over.

.

I just selected some of your statements that attracted my attention.

I have a scientific / engineering formation, but I don't subscribe to the trust you put in science, and especially not in scientists.

I think that the current fiasco, although exacerbated by media and politicians, it was mainly caused by scientists. It was an example of what is the result when making decisions based on what scientists recommend.

Also, the fact that scientists work on developing such deadly pathogens is a big stain on science's reputation, even if this specific virus was't yet proven to have been created by them (I believe that it will be proven).

To me, unconditionally supporting science is equivalent to unconditionally subscribing to a religion. Especially ridiculous (and I mean no offence to you) is the attitude of superiority and intolerance that science bigots have toward religious bigots.

Anyway, as long as we keep having polite discussions, I have no objection to read or contribute.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by inavalan

I think that the current fiasco, although exacerbated by media and politicians, it was mainly caused by scientists. It was an example of what is the result when making decisions based on what scientists recommend.

They are recommendations made by health experts, whom of course have a 'duty'/mindset to preserve as many human lives as possible, thus it is logical that the recommendations can perhaps be seen as very precautionary and extreme for many of us that don't work in that field. Health workers are also ideological by nature, they choose their field because they have that call.

I'm not sure how your background in engineering is relevant to the practice of science itself or to this particular topic. And you make sweeping generalizations about scientists.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There's evidence that's now more readily available indicating eating certain types of animal proteins can certainly have a positive impact on the outcome of infection. It might not prevent infection but it certainly looks to play a role in reducing the more severe outcomes.

There is no evidence either way concerning coronavirus, only that people in old age and those with major health issues such as diabetes, cancer, obesity etc. are more vulnerable. Using coronavirus to preach a diet (OPVerma and you), and relating it to coronavirus is premature, and also opportunistic. If you get one of those conditions than it's unlikely going to matter if you go ''high fat keto'' or drink Krishna-blessed cow milk.

Originally Posted by inavalan

I just selected some of your statements that attracted my attention.

I have a scientific / engineering formation, but I don't subscribe to the trust you put in science, and especially not in scientists.

I think that the current fiasco, although exacerbated by media and politicians, it was mainly caused by scientists. It was an example of what is the result when making decisions based on what scientists recommend.

Also, the fact that scientists work on developing such deadly pathogens is a big stain on science's reputation, even if this specific virus was't yet proven to have been created by them (I believe that it will be proven).

To me, unconditionally supporting science is equivalent to unconditionally subscribing to a religion. Especially ridiculous (and I mean no offence to you) is the attitude of superiority and intolerance that science bigots have toward religious bigots.

Anyway, as long as we keep having polite discussions, I have no objection to read or contribute.

There are good scientists, bad scientists, arrogant scientists, like any other human I suppose. And yes, you do put your trust in science, every time you drive a car, fly in an airplane, use a cell phone, use a GPS, turn on your kitchen tap, go to a doctor, dentist, or optometrist, or even start up your computer to log onto SF, and I could go on and on for as long as you like. Yes science has had its blunders and failings and side effects, but its achievements are rather remarkable. It is because of science that we live so much longer then we did even 100 years ago. That said, science can’t necessarily make us live happier, I think spirituality is important there.

I agree that one should not unconditionally support science, but that is the whole point, and the difference between science and spirituality. Science has rules about evidence, peer review, and repeatability, in other words there are conditions for calling something science, where religion often just asks one to believe unconditionally and that is considered ok, because….well...that is religion. If one is supporting something unconditionally, then that is not a scientific approach, whether it turns out to be accurate or not. That doesn’t make religion automatically wrong either, but science and religion are apples and oranges, such comparisons do not work and IMO, really are not useful.

It is not impossible that someone created the covid-19 virus. So far it appears to be just a natural virus that made the jump to humans. An event that has happened many times in the past and will probably happen many times again in the future. We may never know for sure, but for now I would put my money on the latter explanation until proven otherwise. In any case, science is not to blame as it is not a moral agent, it is just a set of rules. If it is a human created pathogen, it is humans using science to further evil purposes (or maybe even just legitimate research purposes that got out of control) that are to blame. Science is just a set of rules and they are not moral rules, just rules of evidence to support increasing levels of credence in hypotheses and theories. A chefs knife is not good because someone uses it to cook a meal for the hungry, but turns evil if someone uses it to stab somebody else, it is just a tool, not a moral agent.

Bigots are bigots, be they scientists, politicians, racists, religious, or any other flavor. If they have valid scientific theories, then I may consider such theories superior to religious dogma, if not, then they are not scientific bigots, just ordinary bigots pretending to be scientific.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

There are ...

I appreciate your reply.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

There's evidence that's now more readily available indicating eating certain types of animal proteins can certainly have a positive impact on the outcome of infection. It might not prevent infection but it certainly looks to play a role in reducing the more severe outcomes.

It's Vitamin D and aside from Sun exposure animal protein is the best source.

https://www.prevention.com/food-nutr...-in-vitamin-d/

Another factor is insulin and leptin resistance. This degrades the innate immune system and increases inflammatory response, both very bad if one does contract COVID-19. Low carb and high fat diets, keto being an extreme example, can be very beneficial in re-balancing and then maintaining healthy insulin and leptin responses.

Yes, one can supplement Vitamin D but getting it naturally through nutrition via a low carb-high fat diet has the added benefit of combating metabolic syndrome, and that's at the bottom of a host of chronic disease and most of the comorbidities associated with COVIC-19.

Vitamin D is actually a hormone and active in all sorts of immune response biochemistry. My wife is in the medical field and has an autoimmune disease and has reviewed many different studies about the role of Vitamin D in immune system regulation. There are apparently a number of studies linking adequate Vitamin D levels to better outcomes and reduced mortality in Covid-19 cases, that said, I have not looked them up myself. I don't know just how much we can get from eating meat though, I also supplement (only one I take actually). Vitamin D deficiency appears to be a unintended consequence of going from the fields to the factories and office buildings. That, and perhaps a side effect of sun screens as well.

See, you can't hide from ma nature, she will get ya back in the ground one way or another.