Godwin’s Law vs Kohl’s Laws of Biology
Summary: Godwin’s Law is proof that Jane Fonda, Kevin Mitchell, and others like them are mud-slinging losers
Please link my review of Kevin Mitchell’s book (Ignoring light-activated microRNA biogenesis) to this attack on President Trump.
In this case, Godwin’s Law is proof that Jane Fonda (aka Hanoi Jane) and others like her are mud-slinging losers. See:
Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies)… if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends — in comment threads, speeches, articles, and other rhetoric where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
Population geneticists ignored the fact that light-activated microRNA biogenesis links supercoiled DNA to healthy longevity.
They hate the fact that their eugenics movement has been linked to all virus-driven pathology since the 1925 publication of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel “Arrowsmith.”
Since then, scientific creationists have linked light-activated microRNA biogenesis to healthy longevity via God’s Creation of sunlight (i.e., energy as information), ATP, RNA, and supercoiled DNA, which biophysically constrains viral latency.
The Democrats started with the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial and failed when Trump was elected.
“Can we build a wall high enough around this country so as to keep out these cheaper races?”
Population geneticists are like God-less Communists and/or Nazis. They ignored the Laws of Biology and must use Godwin’s Law where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
See also: An error made in 1925 led to a crisis in modern science—now researchers are joining to fix it
…fewer than half of the findings published in three major psychology journals held up when replicated. Another study found that about 40% of experimental economics findings disappeared when the experiment was repeated. Though the .05 threshold is not entirely responsible for the problem—a lack of transparency in the research process is another factor—it is a primary culprit.
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) represent a class of small non-coding RNA (sncRNA) molecules that can regulate mRNAs by inducing their degradation or by blocking translation. Considering that miRNAs are ubiquitous, stable, and conserved across animal species, it seems feasible to exploit them for clinical applications. Unlike in human viral diseases, where some miRNA-based molecules have progressed to clinical application, in veterinary medicine, this concept is just starting to come into view. Clinically, miRNAs could represent powerful diagnostic tools to pinpoint animal viral diseases and/or prognostic tools to follow up disease progression or remission. Additionally, the possible consequences of miRNA dysregulation make them potential therapeutic targets and open the possibilities to use them as tools to generate viral disease-resistant livestock. This review presents an update of preclinical studies on using sncRNAs to combat viral diseases that affect pet and farm animals. Moreover, we discuss the possibilities and challenges of bringing these bench-based discoveries to the veterinary clinic.